Mr. Speaker, this week, Food Banks Canada published a report that showed that, in March alone, nearly one million people received food from a food bank and one-third of them were children.

This report recommends that the government adopt a poverty reduction strategy before October 1, 2017. It is possible to meet that deadline, which is why, today, I am very proud to again submit petitions from Canadians who support Bill C-245, an act concerning the development of a national poverty reduction strategy in Canada.

By voting in favour of this bill on November 30, we can meet that deadline and follow the recommendations that have been made by those working on the ground and people who are directly affected by poverty.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present an e-petition with thousands of signatures from my riding of Sarnia—Lambton on the subject of palliative care.

The petitioners state that the 2011 report from the Parliamentary Committee on Palliative and Compassionate Care outlined the importance of quality palliative care.

In light of the fact that upwards of 70% of Canadians do not have access to quality palliative care, the petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to help ensure that all Canadians have access to quality palliative care by endorsing palliative care options such as those contained within Bill C-277, which incidentally is coming to second reading next week.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House once again to present dozens of petitions signed by many people who are outraged that GMO labelling is not yet mandatory. People in my riding and Canadians in general have been calling for mandatory GMO labelling for a long time.

My colleague from Sherbrooke introduced a bill about this to ensure that everyone can choose what they eat. If they do not want to eat genetically modified salmon, for example, they can make an informed choice.

Hundreds of Canadians have called on our government to reverse unfair changes to adoption rules made by the previous administration and to ensure that children adopted outside of Canada are treated equally, regardless of whether they are granted citizenship through the direct route or the naturalization process.

I want to give a special thanks to my constituents Kat Lanteigne and Graeme Ball for their tireless advocacy on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition signed by Canadians from my wonderful province of Saskatchewan.

The petitioners are concerned about the accessibility and impacts of violent and degrading sexually explicit material online, and the impacts on public health, especially the well-being of women and girls.

As such, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to adopt Motion No. 47.

With regard to the government’s claims that the new Canada Child Benefit will lift 60 000 Quebec children out of poverty: (a) what specific methods and projections did the government use to make that claim; (b) how many children in Quebec were living in poverty as of (i) January 1, 2014, (ii) January 1, 2015, (iii) January 1, 2016; (c) using the government’s studies and projection methods, how many children will there be living in poverty in Quebec as of (i) January 1, 2017, (ii) January 1, 2018, (iii) January 1, 2019?

Terry DuguidLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the government’s claims that the new Canada child benefit will lift 60 000 Quebec children out of poverty, and question (a) specifically, the Canada child benefit, CCB, poverty reduction impacts were estimated through an ESDC micro-simulation model. The model is static in nature, which means that it does not take behavioural responses to policy changes into account. The impacts are estimated by employing a counterfactual method of calculating the effects of a change of policy on a family’s after-tax income. In short, this signifies that a family’s income can be compared under two scenarios (that is, scenario 1 under the existing child benefit system, and scenario 2, under a proposed child benefit system such as the CCB) to determine whether a family whose income would be below a given threshold under scenario 1 would no longer be in that situation under scenario 2. The poverty reduction impact is estimated as the difference between these two scenarios in the number of children below the low-income cut-offs, LICO. Using this approach, it was estimated that nearly 60,000 children would be lifted above the LICO in Quebec as a result of the CCB.

This estimate was produced with an ESDC micro-simulation model that was benchmarked to the child low-income population as it is known through Statistics Canada’s published data (the “Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics” is used as the foundational database for the ESDC model). At the time that the estimate was produced, the “Canadian Income Survey”, Canada’s official source of income data, reported a total number of 163,000 children living below the LICO in 2013. An assumption was made that the number of low-income children would remain unchanged beyond 2013. The system of child benefits that existed in 2013 was therefore chosen as the baseline child benefit system for purposes of the counterfactual analysis.

After doing this, it was estimated that the CCB would result in 60,000 children being lifted above the LICO.

With regard to (b), low income is measured by comparing a family or individual’s income for an entire year to a pre-set threshold such as the LICO for that year. Therefore, it is not possible to tell how many individuals or children are in poverty on a specific day.

The latest low-income statistics available from Statistics Canada are for the year 2014, which reported there were 105,000 children in Quebec below the LICO in 2014. Statistics for 2015 and 2016 are not yet available.

With regard to (c), as mentioned in the answer to question (b), low income is not measured as a specific point in time situation, but rather over an entire year.

Under the assumptions and methodology laid out in answer to question (a), that is, a starting point of 163,000 children below the LICO, reflective of the most recent data available at the time the estimate was performed, ESDC has estimated the number of children below the after-tax LICO to be 103,000 for 2017. The actual number of children in low income for that year will be known when the 2017 “Canadian Income Survey” will be released by Statistics Canada, which may not be until 2019. (For reference, the “Canadian Income Survey, 2014”, was released in July 2016.)

There is significant volatility in the figures of low-income children published by Statistics Canada from one year to the next. Estimates for 2017 are provided because it is the first full year of implementation of the CCB. However, the further in the future that estimates are made, the higher the uncertainty that is associated with these estimates becomes, and estimates beyond 2017 would not be sufficiently reliable at this point.

With regard to refurnishing the Prime Minister's residences at Harrington Lake and at Rideau Cottage: what is the value, or estimated value, as well as a description of any piece of furniture acquired since November 4, 2015, for (i) Harrington Lake, (ii) Rideau Cottage?

Mr. Speaker, the NCC does not attribute the cost of any furniture acquisition to any of the official residences, since all furnishings, acquired or existing for the official residences, are considered part of the NCC’s crown collection or general service asset inventory. Therefore, there are no costs associated with any furnishing changes or purchases related specifically to the Harrington Lake property or to Rideau Cottage.

With regard to individuals working on a contract basis, or for a contractor, including local and third-country cooperants and advisors, who have access to the grounds or buildings of Canadian embassies, consulates, or high commissions, as of October 5, 2016, and broken down by location: (a) how many such individuals have access to the grounds or buildings of Canadian embassies, consulates or high commissions; and (b) how many such individuals in (a) (i) have a valid security clearance, (ii) do not have a valid security clearance?

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part a), the number of contractors working at the 179 Canadian embassies, consulates, or high commissions as of October 5, 2016 is 3,068.

With regard to part b) (i), the number of these contractors having a security clearance allowing them to work in secure zones of Canadian missions is 1,439.

With regard to part b) (ii), 1,629 contractors without a security clearance are allowed access only in the public zones of the grounds or building of Canadian embassies, consulates, or high commissions, as of October 5, 2016.

The safety and security of departmental, embassy, and mission staff and of assets are a top priority. Thorough security protocols and measures are in place at every embassy, consulate, and high commission, tailored to both their respective public and secure zones. These zones require different levels of security clearances and thus have rigorous and appropriate safety and security protocols in place.

With respect to First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada and Assembly of First Nations v Attorney General of Canada (representing the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal File No. T1340/7008: (a) what are the total legal costs incurred by the government in this matter since January 25, 2016; (b) of the 382 million dollars announced for Jordan’s Principle, (i) who was consulted, (ii) what was the process of consultation, (iii) what is the annual breakdown of this funding, (iv) what is the total breakdown of the allocation of these funds; (c) what is the date on which the budget investments in the child welfare system were initially developed; (d) with respect to adjustment to funding formulae regarding remoteness in the child welfare system, (i) will Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) develop a strategy that takes into account such things, (ii) if so, when will such a strategy will be implemented; (e) with respect to consultation during this legal process, (i) what is the list of the First Nations, First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons that INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, in response to the findings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s January 26, 2016, decision, (ii) what is INAC’s consultation plan moving forward, (iii) what are the agendas for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, (iv) what are the summaries of discussions for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016; (f) with respect to the allocation of immediate relief funding in Ontario, what are the the details of all correspondence between INAC and the Government of Ontario on this topic; (g) with respect to the definition of prevention services in Ontario that was raised in the ruling, (i) will INAC reimburse costs for travel to access physician-prescribed special needs services and assessments, special needs rehabilitative and support services and respite care, and support for families in crisis under the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians, (ii) what are the details of any requests INAC has received for reimbursement of costs for travel to access physician-prescribed special needs services and assessments, special needs rehabilitative and support services and respite care, and support for families in crisis in Ontario; (h) with respect to the infrastructure needs in Ontario that were identified by the ruling, (i) does INAC have an interim strategy to deal with infrastructure needs of FNCFS Agencies in Ontario outside of the 1965 Memorandum of Agreement Respecting Welfare Programs for Indians, (ii) if INAC has such an interim strategy, what are the details of that strategy, (iii) if INAC does not have an interim strategy, has anything been done to develop such a strategy; (i) with respect to eligibility in Ontario, (i) will INAC address access to services for First Nations children in Ontario who are “entitled to be registered” under the Indian Act, (ii) if INAC will address such access to services, when will such access be addressed; (j) with respect to consultation on Jordan’s Principle, (i) what is the list of First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, in response to the findings in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s January 26, 2016, decision, along with INAC’s consultation plan moving forward, (ii) what were the agendas for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016, (iii) what are the summaries of discussions for any consultations INAC has had with First Nations, FNCFS Agencies, provincial and territorial authorities, partners, experts or any other persons INAC has consulted with since January 26, 2016; and (k) with respect to the Canadian Incidence Study, (i) is funding being provided for the Aboriginal component of the Study, including whether that component of the Study will include data collection specific to remote and northern First Nations, (ii) if funding is being provided, when will the Study be in the field, (iii) what are the details of methodology used for data collection with regard to the Aboriginal component of the Study and with regard to remote and northern First Nations?

With regard to the government’s response to petition No. 388, addressed to the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, specifically in response to question three, wherein the government states it would preferably use the Central Experimental Farm for two future-planned studies: (a) what is the objective of each study; (b) based on research conducted by the government, is it possible to determine if each study be concluded by the end of 2022; (c) which characteristics of this specific plot of the Central Experimental Farm are required for these studies, broken down by type; (d) has the government considered whether these studies can be completed on another plot of the Central Experimental Farm, and if so, what was its conclusion; (e) what similar lands or facilities exist that could accommodate these studies; (f) to-date what costs have been incurred in preparing these studies; and (g) has the cost of cancelling these studies been considered, and if so, what would they be?

With regard to moving expenses for individuals working on a contract basis, broken down by government department and agency, since November 4, 2015: (a) how many individuals working on a contract basis have had their moving or temporary accommodation expenses paid for by the government; (b) how much was paid, broken down by expense type; (c) how many individuals working on a contract basis for a Minister's office have had their moving or temporary accommodation expenses paid for by the government; and (d) for each case referred to in (c), (i) how much was paid, (ii) what is the specific breakdown of expenses paid?

With regard to cyber attacks, broken down by month, and by department, agency, and crown corporation, since January 1, 2016: (a) how many cyber attacks have occurred, either against a department, agency or crown corporation or on one of their servers or networks; (b) how many of the attacks referred to in (a) resulted in government information being stolen; (c) how many of the attacks referred to in (b) resulted in classified government information being stolen; (d) how many of the attacks referred to in (a) resulted in individuals' personal information being stolen; (e) for each of the attacks referred to in (d), how many individuals' personal information was stolen; (f) were the individuals from whom information was stolen informed of the theft, and, if so, how were they informed; and (g) for each case where individuals' information was stolen, was the Privacy Commissioner notified?